Cyant wrote on Nov 30, 2017, 08:50:

NegaDeath wrote on Nov 29, 2017, 15:30:
I almost have to give him credit. I thought he was a one trick pony with milking people for virtual ships. But selling digital dirt? EA wishes it was this creative in revenue generation.

At least it's not loot boxes with random ships and parcels of lands!

Please don't give them any ideas!

Kxmode wrote on Nov 30, 2017, 06:40:
Gotcha. I guess if I wanted to see a more realistic backer response going to the "Church of Star Citizen" probably isn't the best place.

I did find it interesting that even though I went to the source, the RSI forums, all I saw was high praise for it on page 1 (except for that one thread you pointed out). Personally, this reeks of heavy moderation or downvoting dissenting threads with the occasional "negative" being allowed to flourish for reasons unknown. I'm not sure. I've had bad experiences on that forum that border on draconian moderation.

Anyhow, thanks for the additional information.

To be honest I follow the Star Citizen subreddit more than I do the official forums and there criticism has been more vocal. And the media coverage has spread beyond merely gaming websites and onto tech sites, likely due to the similar controversy over loot boxes. News of the announcement leaked ahead of the official video and resulted in the video being delayed whilst a Q&A was put together.

I think some people have become so detached from reality that they don't see any big deal with CIG charging for fictional land in a pre-beta game. People rail against traditional publishers whilst CIG is given a free pass. As people are aware, I'm an early backer of the game - I've met the developers at three events (CitizenCon 2015 in Manchester, Gamescom 2017 in Cologne and CitizenCon 2017 in Frankfurt) and I'm a golden ticket holder back from the original announcement - but I don't support this recent move. I'm still a fan of the game, I still love the direction the overall game is heading, I just think this move was poorly considered that will generate a lot of negativity from those outside the community.

I'd rather see CIG start pushing more in the way of cosmetics, items that can be earnt in game but that can be purchased to support development. I'd even be fine with backers paying to have characters named after themselves. There are so many potential funding avenues yet CIG went for the most controversial.

Flatline wrote on Nov 30, 2017, 13:41:
I'm not seriously accusing them of this, but with all the investigation about money laundering going on in the US news right now, it actually occurs to me that something like Star Citizen, with it's black hole black box funding, never ending stretch goals, never ending dev cycle, international footprint, etc... would make an *excellent* money laundering system.

You put your money in as a "contribution", and a "business" you own for... hell I dunno, motion capture let's say, gets a fat check every month for 85% of what you put in. Fans/contributors have no idea because everything is so obscure. Dirty money is also mixed in with clean money to make everything even harder to track.

I'm not accusing SC of being a money laundering scheme, but from the stories I've read concerning people like Paul Manafort, RSI would be perfect for it.

I'm not sure how that would work. You put your dirty money into RSI as a contribution, and then RSI gives you... money back? Other than refunds, when are they ever giving money back? In either case, RSI would list said money on both sides of their balance sheet, so there's plenty of evidence there. It would "launder" the money only for as long as it takes an IRS agent to come and spend 2 minutes looking at your paperwork.

I'm not seriously accusing them of this, but with all the investigation about money laundering going on in the US news right now, it actually occurs to me that something like Star Citizen, with it's black hole black box funding, never ending stretch goals, never ending dev cycle, international footprint, etc... would make an *excellent* money laundering system.

You put your money in as a "contribution", and a "business" you own for... hell I dunno, motion capture let's say, gets a fat check every month for 85% of what you put in. Fans/contributors have no idea because everything is so obscure. Dirty money is also mixed in with clean money to make everything even harder to track.

I'm not accusing SC of being a money laundering scheme, but from the stories I've read concerning people like Paul Manafort, RSI would be perfect for it.

NegaDeath wrote on Nov 29, 2017, 15:30:
I almost have to give him credit. I thought he was a one trick pony with milking people for virtual ships. But selling digital dirt? EA wishes it was this creative in revenue generation.

At least it's not loot boxes with random ships and parcels of lands!

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Nov 30, 2017, 04:53:
There are many people who see it as no different to buying ships. Personally I'm not a great fan of selling ships as there are P2W concerns but it helps fund the game and increase the variety of the universe. Selling land does the opposite - it boxes off content.

The community is divided on this. Don't forget that the Spectrum community compromises of the more serious fans of the game, so for it to even get to this level of criticism is a big deal. But I agree, sometimes the community can be utterly oblivious to criticism and will defend any decision CIG makes.

That said, there's a lot of criticism here: You've got to be kidding

Gotcha. I guess if I wanted to see a more realistic backer response going to the "Church of Star Citizen" probably isn't the best place.

I did find it interesting that even though I went to the source, the RSI forums, all I saw was high praise for it on page 1 (except for that one thread you pointed out). Personally, this reeks of heavy moderation or downvoting dissenting threads with the occasional "negative" being allowed to flourish for reasons unknown. I'm not sure. I've had bad experiences on that forum that border on draconian moderation.

Anyhow, thanks for the additional information.

Kxmode wrote on Nov 30, 2017, 03:40:

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Nov 29, 2017, 20:05:
I feel this move is a shameless cash grab and exactly what I'd expect from a publisher like EA. For them to be announcing this so shortly after the loot box debacle is absurd.

Chris' has a big pair of gravitas.

Also, this is why selling markers for land that doesn't yet exist appear to work with backers. None of them appear to ask any questions.
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3?page=1&sort=hot

The community is behind it. I think at this point they'll get behind ANYTHING Chris pitches, which is precisely why Chris was happy to not go to VCs. They would've had all kinds of questions about this move. The least of which would've been, "is this within the scope of the original pitch?" The answer is obvious.

I got sucked into purchasing virtual land claims with EverQuest Next Landmark. Then it became Landmark. Then it got canceled. Daybreak still has my $99.

There are many people who see it as no different to buying ships. Personally I'm not a great fan of selling ships as there are P2W concerns but it helps fund the game and increase the variety of the universe. Selling land does the opposite - it boxes off content.

The community is divided on this. Don't forget that the Spectrum community compromises of the more serious fans of the game, so for it to even get to this level of criticism is a big deal. But I agree, sometimes the community can be utterly oblivious to criticism and will defend any decision CIG makes.

That said, there's a lot of criticism here: You've got to be kidding

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Nov 29, 2017, 20:05:
I feel this move is a shameless cash grab and exactly what I'd expect from a publisher like EA. For them to be announcing this so shortly after the loot box debacle is absurd.

Chris' has a big pair of gravitas.

Also, this is why selling markers for land that doesn't yet exist appear to work with backers. None of them appear to ask any questions.
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3?page=1&sort=hot

The community is behind it. I think at this point they'll get behind ANYTHING Chris pitches, which is precisely why Chris was happy to not go to VCs. They would've had all kinds of questions about this move. The least of which would've been, "is this within the scope of the original pitch?" The answer is obvious.

I got sucked into purchasing virtual land claims with EverQuest Next Landmark. Then it became Landmark. Then it got canceled. Daybreak still has my $99.

Chris Roberts is a deceptive person who lies ..... for money.

Hoo boy.

We're reaching new lows as a species this year for sure.

Creston wrote on Nov 29, 2017, 17:52:
At the beginning I had the thought that Roberts actually does have Venture Capital tied up in this, he just didn't want to admit it because people would (rightfully) be worried that morons in suits would be dictating gameplay.

It was openly stated that the initial Kickstarter was to prove to investors that the appeal was there and they were going to provide the rest of the funding necessary. When the project became a runaway success they were no longer necessary and it became entirely community funded.

This isn't about appealing to investors. This is about CIG becoming so disconnected from the community and gamers in general as to not realise this move would be unpopular. There was already plenty of criticism surrounding the Sabre Raven, which can only be acquired by buying an extremely expensive SSD.

Unfortunately I think this is going to be swept under the rug when CIG shows off S42 later this week and that will take all the attention away from this. I think the timing of this announcement was carefully considered.

I feel this move is a shameless cash grab and exactly what I'd expect from a publisher like EA. For them to be announcing this so shortly after the loot box debacle is absurd.

CIG has always walked a fine line when it comes to pay-2-win concerns but I feel this massively oversteps the mark. They had an established and accepted method of raising revenue - concept sales for ships, which increase the variety of the game and expand it far beyond just combat. Now they're boxing off content before the game has even been released. Selling land only restricts players not paying.

Excellent idea Chris.

I'm in baby!

Crowd funded > anything else

Sell me whatever .. make the best space game.

I got summ. Dad always said real estate is always a good investment and with the little land mass they have now, it's going to make bitcoins blush. Mark my words.

Creston wrote on Nov 29, 2017, 17:52:
At the beginning I had the thought that Roberts actually does have Venture Capital tied up in this, he just didn't want to admit it because people would (rightfully) be worried that morons in suits would be dictating gameplay.

Or VCs would ask the kind of questions Chris doesn't want to answer. Apparently backers aren't VCs and they don't ask the same questions. Chris is okay with this. Don't ask; don't tell.

Flatline wrote on Nov 29, 2017, 16:55:
But still, every month, you're looking at around an average of 2.5 million dollars.

I have no goddamn idea how they do that unless they have 25,000 people donating 100 bucks a month to the game.

At the beginning I had the thought that Roberts actually does have Venture Capital tied up in this, he just didn't want to admit it because people would (rightfully) be worried that morons in suits would be dictating gameplay.

I'd backed off of that over the years, since whatever, but now I'm firmly beginning to believe it again. There can't be THAT many gullible idiots with a hundred bucks to spare each month out there.

In that case he's not actually selling plots of digital land, he's just come up with something else to hide the fact that it's paid for by VC. Which would be significantly less odious.

i think 'lol' adequately covers my feelings for this.

If people want land to park their spaceship, just use Photoshop or GIMP: https://i.imgur.com/cFtY45S.jpg

This is free!

Darks wrote on Nov 29, 2017, 15:25:

Kxmode wrote on Nov 29, 2017, 15:06:

DangerDog wrote on Nov 29, 2017, 14:56:
Chris Roberts is showing EA how it's done!

And Star Citizen backers is showing gamers how it's done!

Again, dont go putting all backers into the same basket. I did not back this game with ships buying or any other dumbass monetized items. I only backed the game to buy a copy of the game at the time as did many of us that are now getting dragged down with the ship.

Us original backers thought we were going to get a space flight sim game in an open world environment. Not this abomination its turned into now.

You say that like I wasn't an original backer.

Is there any way this game can save face now?

So many things people are complaining about, similar to Duke Nukem Forever, no matter what eventually gets released, it will be lambasted.

{PH}88fingers wrote on Nov 29, 2017, 16:05:

Flatline wrote on Nov 29, 2017, 15:27:
I wonder if ship sales are slowing down now. This is a weird thing to sell, at an awful high price point.

April 2017: $ 2,600,000
May 2017: $ 2,700,000
June 2017: $ 2,300,000
July 2017: $ 2,375,000
August 2017: $ 2,700,000
September 2017: $ 1,700,000
October 2017: $ 3,250,000

and I'm sure November will be much higher than those.

So i guess the answer to your question is "no"

October must have been a sale month. That's the only way that you can describe the discrepancy between September and October.

But still, every month, you're looking at around an average of 2.5 million dollars.

I have no goddamn idea how they do that unless they have 25,000 people donating 100 bucks a month to the game.

Those numbers seem really weirdly stable. The subscription thing is the only thing I can figure out that stabilizes these numbers because you'd expect sales to ebb and flow depending on when new versions of the alpha would come out.